Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Butala v. State, 664 N.W.2d 333.

132 citing documents.

Francisco Herrera Sanchez v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56, 106 S. Ct. 366, 369 (1985).
Kodjo Agbelengeor Anyide-Ocloo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kodjo Agbelengeor Anyide-Ocloo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56–57, 106 S. Ct. 366, 369 (1985).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Trent Johnson 867 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Trent Johnson 867 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John Wesley Cridge v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John Wesley Cridge v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jay Michael Ellingson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erick Antwan Casey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jay Michael Ellingson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To be valid, a guilty plea “must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Erick Antwan Casey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kai Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kai Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Johosephat Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Johosephat Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(concluding that the fact defendant was not represented in his plea-withdrawal motion is not a fair-and-just basis for plea withdrawal).
State v. Nicks 831 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2013
State v. Nicks 831 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2013
§ 590.04 (2012), we have an “obligation to extend a broad review of both questions of law and fact.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)
Fort v. State 829 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2013
Fort v. State 829 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2013
§ 590.01 (2012), we conduct “ ‘a broad review of both questions of law and fact.’ ” (); *82
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
See, (explaining that the “commitment to convicted defendants’ rights to at least one substantive review” allowed this court to review the merits of defendant’s petition despite a 22-month delay in obtaining appellate review); (finding defendant’s delay in
Anderson v. State 806 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Anderson v. State 806 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Lopez 794 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Lopez 794 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Cf. Raleigh, d at 97 (holding no fair-and-just reason for plea withdrawal because defendant’s reasons not substantiated by the record); -41 (Minn.2003) (holding fair-and-just standard not satisfied because defendant’s reasons not supported by evidence in record).
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
I. We have said that “we have an ‘obligation to extend a broad review of both questions of law and fact in postcon-viction proceedings.’ ” (quoting State ex rel.
State v. Finnegan 784 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2010
Odegard v. State 767 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Odegard v. State 767 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Paige 765 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Paige 765 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
se the basis for appellant’s plea withdrawal was ineffective assistance of counsel, his “hands have been tied a little bit in terms of what [he could] and [could not] do, or what [he felt] comfortable with in terms of [appellant].” Counsel further stated, “I’m a little bit in a difficult position in terms of what I can and can’t do in this case.”
Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
El-Shabazz v. State 754 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2008
El-Shabazz v. State 754 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2008
When reviewing postconviction proceedings, we have an “obligation to extend a broad review of both questions of law and fact.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
Whittaker v. State 753 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 2008
Whittaker v. State 753 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 2008
Hannon v. State 752 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2008
Hannon v. State 752 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2008
Ashby v. State 752 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 2008
Vance v. State 752 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2008
Vance v. State 752 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2008
I. When reviewing postconviction proceedings, we are to “ ‘extend a broad review of both questions of law and fact.’ ” (quoting State ex rel.
Ashby v. State 752 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 2008
ROBLEDO-KINNEY v. State 751 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 2008
ROBLEDO-KINNEY v. State 751 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 2008
When reviewing a postconviction court’s denial of relief, we have “an obligation to extend a broad review of both questions of law and fact.” Butala v. *116 State, (internal quotation omitted).
Martin v. State 748 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2008
Martin v. State 748 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2008
I. “On review of a postconviction court’s denial of relief, we ‘extend a broad review of both questions of law and fact.’ ” ().